The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: exchange with Richard Stallman

Bruce Perens writes:
 > > (1) Unstripped executables probably have some technical advantages in
 > > some circumstances.  I don't think it's reasonable to require this for
 > > debian 1.1.
 > 
 > It's not reasonable for Debian 10.1 either. Build a distribution this
 > way and look at the size penalty you pay for this miniscule improvement.
 > Use the source instead.

Hmm.. about a factor of three for the case I examined.

Like I said before, I wouldn't mind supplying FSF with unstripped
binaries.  I'm not going to speak for other people on this.  I agree
that this sort of thing probably shouldn't go into the main debian
distribution.

[By the way, doen't the current debian package specs say to build the
binaries -g and strip them just before writing the package?]

 > > (2) Encouraging people to write documentation is very different from
 > > mandating people write documentation in texinfo.
 > 
 > Why encourage them to write in TexInfo when there are superior alternatives? 
 > I think we should ask for linuxdoc.sgml or straight HTML.

linuxdoc.sgml has a convert to texinfo format, right?  Does RMS have
any specific (technical) objections to linuxdoc?  [I know, you don't
want to have to bother asking -- mind if I do so?]

 > > The info browser has its flaws, but it will let you interactively
 > > search multiple files for a single string -- this alone has saved
 > > me hours of time (libc.info).
 > 
 > We could provide that with HTML documentation as well.

Given a decent printed representation, and a multi-file interactive
search in a free browser, I think we'd have addressed all of RMS's
technical reasons for preferring texinfo.  Then again, what do I know?


 > > (4) RMS's point 4 is not completely clear to me.  I don't think
 > > we'd run into any problems if we gave him permission to
 > > distribute copies of the specs with phrases which offend him
 > > removed.
 > 
 > He's not interested in permission. He wants us to remove the references.

That's ok, I think we should give him permission -- if he's not
interested it becomes his choice.

 > FSF is an obsolete organization that has had 10 years to put out a
 > system and has not done so. Linux is a _successor_ to FSF. We
 > should not be holding ourselves back so that we can appease Richard
 > Stallman, especially when Richard has been so hostile to the Linux
 > community.

I agree that their approach to kernel building is fraught with
difficulty.  I don't think that the Debian approach would have
resulted in a good kernel either.  Then again, that's NOT our goal,
but IS theirs.

 > I personally WILL NOT be a part of working with FSF. So fire me or
 > leave and start your own project.

I suspect there's a lot more behind that statement than I'm privy to.

I hope it's sufficient to say that I'm interested in bringing up ideas
that I think are interesting, or may be important, but I'm not
interested in forcing these issues (well, I occasionally get carried
away on completely trivial issues...).

-- 
Raul